• LemmyAtem@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honest question - what’s a tankie? I feel like I’ve seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I’d never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?

    • aski3252@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Originally, it was used to describe communists who followed the party line and supported suppressing Hungarian workers with tanks.

      Today it means ultra-authoritarian marxist-leninist.

        • h34d@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s not entirely the same though. Some of the “tankies” in the West seem to be Maoists more than Stalinists, as far as I can tell. Besides, some (many?) Stalinists also consider the term “Stalinist” derogatory, and prefer to call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”.

          • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Ok but let’s not pretend that either Marx or Lenin envisaged their form of communism as what Stalin was doing

            It’s no different to “free speech” suddenly meaning “free hate speech, but restricted speech on anything else”

      • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:

        The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[7][8] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung.

          • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Then every social structure is authoritarian.

            Anarchists usually distinguish between just and unjust hierarchies, by the way, and svoid the word “authoritarian” when describing just ones. Anarchists still need to organize themselves to have leadership and delegation.

            • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              You should read about anarchy before you speak on it lol

              There are all kinds of organizational styles that are non heirarchical.

              Look into horizontal organization

              Also look up the zapatistas, while they do not call themselves anarchist. They use a non heirarchical form of government.

              • naeap@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
                at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.

                no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that

                edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for

              • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea

                • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.

                  are you taking the position of a literal child?

                  • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”

    • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s an insult used by liberals to punch left. Because liberals, as a rule, don’t really read history or politics with any depth, they don’t use it consistently. Sometimes it is conflated with communist. Sometimes they throw it at liberals that are just a bit less racist and xenophobic than them.

      Originally it meant communists who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary, and was used by British communists to split up their own parties on the issue.

    • SirSnufflelump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      They’re communists, but not your every day “people should hold the power” communists. More like “tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn’t that bad” type

    • agreyworld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia’s praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the “Prague Spring”) on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn’t accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.

      Nowadays, it’s used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there’s a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American “imperialism” must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.

      These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn’t exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for… well… they’re America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.

      • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think a better term is “Campist” which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it’s the same shit the SPD did during WW1

        • GarbageShootAlt@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Careful, these liberals will attack Trotskyists the moment they offer any positive opinion on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It won’t get you anywhere trying to be One of the Good Communists, it will just give you a chance to be a useful idiot for liberals who don’t actually support you.